John McCain Says He Could Lose Over Iraq War

Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaks to reporters after a town hall meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, Monday, Feb. 25, 2008. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

ROCKY RIVER, Ohio — John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can't, "then I lose. I lose," the Republican said.

He quickly backed off that remark.

"Let me not put it that stark," the likely GOP nominee told reporters on his campaign bus. "Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the country both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security."

"If I may, I'd like to retract 'I'll lose.' But I don't think there's any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge," McCain added. "Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree."

The five-year-old Iraq conflict already is emerging as a fault line in the general election, with the Arizona senator calling for the U.S. military to continue its mission while his Democratic opponents urge speedy withdrawal.

While most Republicans still back the war, many independents and Democrats don't. That presents a significant challenge for McCain and an opportunity for either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

McCain acknowledged the war will be "a significant factor in how the American people judge my candidacy."

The lead Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has consistently backed the war although he's long criticized the way it was waged after the Saddam Hussein's fall. He was an original proponent of President Bush's troop-increase strategy, having called for more forces on the ground for several years. Last spring, McCain went all in on the war by embracing it as Bush took heat for boosting troop levels to quell violence.

"We can fail in Iraq," McCain said Monday in an Associated Press interview. But, he added: "I see a clear path to success in Iraq." He defined that as fewer casualties and Iraqi troops taking over security to allow U.S. forces to return home. "All of us want out of Iraq, the question is how do we want out of Iraq," he added.

McCain has signaled that he plans to make Iraq and national security a major part of his general election campaign. Daily, he accuses both Obama and Clinton as wanting to "wave the white flag of surrender." Democrats, for their part, are arguing that McCain's candidacy is simply a continuation of Bush's "failed" policies. They have seized on a previous McCain remark in which he suggested that U.S. troop presence _ at some level _ could extend 100 years or more.

At a town hall-style meeting in suburban Cleveland, McCain accused Democrats of distorting that comment and sought to explain. "The war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us," he said. Like after other wars, he said, the United States then will decide "what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis."

While McCain attracts voters across the political spectrum, he is sure to face resistance this fall for his Iraq position in Ohio and other swing states that have seen high numbers of residents die in Iraq.

Over the next eight months, McCain said he would take the same approach when discussing Iraq that he's taken all year as he won primary after primary on his way to securing the GOP nomination.

Speaking to reporters on his bus, he said he would "tell them that I understand their frustration and their sorrow over the sacrifice that has been made and then I try to explain to them what's at stake and what's going on there now. And that's the best I can do."

McCain said his candidacy will be successful "if I can convince the American people, the people of Ohio, that this is succeeding, that the casualties will continue down, although there are occasional spikes."

"So I have to, and I believe can, make an argument that the surge is succeeding, that we will end this war and have the Iraqis take over those responsibilities as we more and more assume support roles and then withdraw," he added.

McCain recalled reading a USA Today poll that he said showed most people believe the troop-increase strategy is succeeding, and said: "Now, still the majority of Americans want out of Iraq. And, I understand that, too. So do I."

The survey actually found that 43 percent _ not a majority _ said the troop increase is "making the situation there better," up from 22 percent in July.

Asked why he asked to retract the "I lose" remark, McCain said much else could impact his chances.

"We've got many months to go before the general election," he said. "But is Iraq an important part of the judgment that people will make of me, of course."

Original here

Time for Hillary to drop out?

Sen. Hillary Clinton in Rhode Island.

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

There’s a growing chorus of voices starting to call for Hillary Clinton to give it up.

In a Newsweek column called “Hillary should get out now”, Jonathan Alter says if she wanted a graceful exit, now would be the time – before the Texas and Ohio primaries – to drop out and endorse Barack Obama. He says it would be the “best thing imaginable” for Clinton’s political career, meaning it would set her up perfectly for 2012 if Obama loses. Alter says Clinton doesn’t have a reasonable chance of winning the nomination, but he doesn’t think she’ll call it quits.

He writes: “The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon – they’ll give it up only when it’s wrenched from their cold, dead fingers.”

Meanwhile, in another tough piece, Robert Novak asks who will tell Hillary Clinton that it’s over, that she can’t win the nomination and the sooner she gets out of the way, the better the chances her party will beat John McCain in November.

Novak writes, quote: “Clinton’s burden is not only Obama’s charisma but also McCain’s resurrection. Some of the same Democrats who short months ago were heralding her as the “perfect” candidate now call her a sure loser against McCain, saying she would do the party a favor by just leaving.”

Here’s my question to you: Is it time for Hillary Clinton to admit defeat and quit the race?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Karen writes:
It doesn’t bother me that she would wait for Texas and Ohio. However, her mood swings have me question her mental state. How rude to “talk down” to another adult by saying “shame on you”… We need someone with dignity and a little class. Please, stop giving her a performance stage! It’s a bad act!

Vinnie from New York writes:
Jack, Let’s see how Hillary does in Texas and Ohio. If she can win by double digits in both states then it will give her campaign a new heart beat. Mr. Novak should write about something he understands, which is nothing.

J.C. from Raleigh, N.C. writes:
Jack, Why should Hillary drop out if she’s, as her campaign claims, raising $1 million a day? Think how many consultants, posh hotels, caterers, pizza shops, and Dunkin’ Donuts franchises can still make a bundle. Hillary’s

Lex from Stone Mountain, Georgia writes:
I saw Clinton giving a speech earlier, where she actually mimicked and mocked Obama like a 6th grader. She shows no signs of bowing out with grace.

David from San Bernardino, California writes:
No, Hillary needs to stay in the race to the very end! How would it look if the first real female presidential candidate just quit the race? Women would continue to be perceived as weak and not emotionally qualified to be president. Women are strong and smart and just as qualified as any man!

Jay writes:
The fat lady is singing. Can’t you hear her? For the good of the party, Hillary should step aside. Her campaign strategy only went as far as Super Tuesday because she assumed she would be the nominee. Sometimes things just don’t work out. Her time has come… and gone. For this cycle anyway.

Jim writes:
Absolutely. But she won’t quit until the writing on the wall is written with the Democratic Party’s blood.

Victoria writes:
Jack, You’re nuts. Heck no! I think you should drop out… of your job!

Original here

America the Beautiful Has Never Been More Hideous

President Bush and his Lawless Administration

No, this article isn’t going to delve into the illegal war in Iraq, although the evidence is mounting on that case as well. Today, I’d like to bring your attention to FISA. While the war in Iraq is an issue that will yield debate for decades and maybe centuries to come, FISA “modernization” is a matter that has not sunk in with the general public. We don’t have to die by the FISA sword just yet and as long as there are Americans standing in this nation, no one should sit idly by as corporations attempt to slip a fast one past our national interests.

A brewing FISA Controversy

Allow me to quickly explain how privacy is protected for American citizens normally, then I’ll get into FISA and the threat to our constitutional rights and American identity. Think about this issue like you do any federal law that aims to protect the privacy of American citizens while giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to get the job done. Without going into too much detail, the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has traditionally granted American citizens the right to privacy without explicitly saying so in the language.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th amendment helps serve as a framework that covers your right to be free from government intrusion, especially in your home and private space. If you’ve ever seen “Law and Order” or some other show where the main character agonizes over invading a suspected criminal’s home because of a lacking warrant, then you understand the concept of liberty that every American citizen enjoys. Even the most unscrupulous of characters are guaranteed the benefit of the doubt when it comes to privacy and that isn’t a blunder made by our founders or the countless courts that have visited the issue over the years.

Privacy is important to American citizens, liberty and the right to be free of government intrusion is key to the foundation of our United States constitution and those rights have been severely crippled under the Bush Administration. The biggest threats to our rights are realized through two measures that betrayed the American trust over Bush’s years in office, “the Patriot Act” and “the Protect America Act”. For people paying attention, it’s no secret that the Bush Administration and his allies in the rubber-stamping Congress, worked hard to create names that deceive Americans into foregoing their rights so that they may wage “the War on Terror”.

So what is FISA and how does it affects you?

FISA stands for the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” It is significant because it creates the legal standards for foreign surveillance. FISA’s modernization is supposed to focus on capturing terrorist organizations and individuals that might do us harm, but what about when the surveillance involves American citizens — directly or indirectly?

Almost immediately after Bush was inaugurated as President, he had a working surveillance program underway that would spy on American citizens. The system was developed through the department of defense or some other secretive government agency from prior administrations and possibly in conjunction with the telecommunications companies. Although the idea predated Bush’s days in office, his predecessors hesitated to set this in motion, perhaps because they had the common sense not to or maybe they were waiting for the perfect time to install the system. The important issue to focus on here is that Bush had no qualms about invading our privacy and violating federal law at the time he signed off on mass surveillance. Remember that September 11th didn’t occur for well over six months after the system was set in motion. The story that is fed to the public and through the clueless media is that President Bush enacted the spying program as a result of 9/11.

Bush and his surrogates in Congress argue this as a cause and effect issue and insist nothing fishy was going on. Terrorist attacked our homeland on September 11th, they argue, and therefore the President acted in “our best interests” by soliciting the assistance of the telecommunications industry — to install a mass surveillance program that would sweep the internet and phone records for intel. In that same light, the telecommunications companies acted properly because they fulfilled their “patriotic duty” to this nation and did so only at the request of the President.

Illegal Surveillance of American Citizens

The question before Congress is whether the United States should provide immunity to these corporations that were involved in a surveillance program that most likely violated the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. This “alleged” violation of our constitutional framework was done for the sake of amassing a database of all perceived threats to the American interest. The fact that the President and a few Senate Republicans in-the-know are so adamantly opposed to a FISA bill that allows the legal system to determine whether the law was violated is very telling of their motives. They have something to hide and a good handful of Americans in public office know what that something is.

As you consider FISA legislation and “spying on Americans without a warrant”, recognize that President Bush, with the assistance of his newly minted Attorney General Mukasey, has intentionally violated the FISA provisions of 1978. Neither President Bush nor his administration can use the excuse that he had no knowledge he was violating the law or that any of the mass intelligence gathering was inadvertently done. On Friday, Attorney General Mukasey released a statement about our national security and the executive’s intent to continue violating FISA of 1978 out of fear of “missing intelligence”.

You’re either with us or against us…

Attorney General Mukasey said that because immunity “is up for grabs,” telecommunications companies are “more and more uncertain, more and more hesitant to cooperate.” With that, the fear-driven tactics are once again renewed by the executive and like Mukasey’s predecessor Alberto Gonzales, he acts as a shield to executive accountability.

“So, my answer to mom and pop is we’re trying to keep you safe, but it’s getting increasingly difficult,” he said.

To complicate matters more, the Attorney General’s office is once again politicized, a serious problem that will lead to future legal entanglements for years to come.

“If the vote were held today, it would pass, by our count, because there are a majority of House members who support it,” Mukasey said.

Notice that the attorney general views this as an “us vs. them” and he puts himself squarely on the side of the Executive branch and with the handful of republicans that were aware of the illegal surveillance. The FISA currently enacted as law in the United States is as it was from 1978 until August of 2007 when Congress hurriedly passed the “Protect America Act”.

At the time, Congress did this so recklessly in large part because the President cited classified evidence of a serious and imminent terrorist threat to the United States and urged Congress to pass it or else. The last time Bush raised the specter of mushroom clouds and an impending attack from Iraq, he also averted legal accountability and hundreds of billions of dollars later there is no end in sight to the executive’s violation of the law. What is the difference between our situation in 2001 and the situation in 2008? For starters, we can do something about FISA in a way that we were unable to do with respect to the Iraq War.

Solving the FISA Crisis and above-the-law Executive Power

First, we must put a stop to all illegal maneuvering by our government and telecommunications companies by drawing the line on immunity as they have done.

President Bush now insists that he will not sign any bills that fail to include immunity for past “alleged” illegal activity. Despite the rhetoric and propaganda that he is making in statements to the press, with some organizations funding television ads against the House leadership, this isn’t a lack of the House of Representatives’ interest in securing our nation. The reason the house refuses to bring the measure to the floor for a vote is because it is finally standing up for the American people. The House leadership, for once, is showing the courage that our Senate Democrats have not. In fact, it isn’t an unwillingness to cooperate with the FISA modernization as they gladly offer the terms of the Senate or House bills for vote. They’ve become wise to the President’s political agenda, however. The only area where the House refuses to compromise is telecommunications immunity. What they refuse to offer is a free pass for any and all illegal acts undertaken by our government or corporations against our citizens. What they are doing right now, until they prove otherwise, is standing up for the people that make this government and nation worthy of praise and admiration.

If you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you know that last week I wrote an emotional piece that garnered a lot of attention, especially over this statement: “I’ve never been more ashamed to be an American.” That was how I felt after the Senate stabbed all Americans in the back on the telecommunications immunity issue. As far as I’m concerned, the House of Representatives is the only hope that people like me and maybe you have for justice in this new era of super patriots, fear mongers and war profiteering.

America is watching and people of the world are at the edge of their seats because they, like I, see a glimmer of hope in America and this time it has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Perhaps America isn’t the brutal monster that some corporatist goons in Washington have converted this nation into. Yes, it’s true… “America the beautiful” has never been more hideous, but maybe this ugly duckling can turn into a swan if our leaders can show the courage necessary to fight this evil that has tainted our government.

Original here